Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 13th Alley (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Consensus is that coverage that exists satisfies

WP:NF. Michig (talk) 07:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

The 13th Alley

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability: significant RS coverage cannot be found. Result of previous AfD was "sources are available", but they are insufficient to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

~~Redirect to~~ (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Changing to keep, since there's another review now.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 06:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Solid Keep per snow keep and
WP:NEXIST tells us that notability is established by sources being available,[1][2][3][4][5] and not upon their ever being used. That a New York Times review is not brought forward does not make the others magically vanish. While it would be delightful if this 2008 independent film had the coverage of some major studio's highly touted blockbuster, that is not a policy nor guideline requirement. Again, sorry. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

The first two links are probably the most relevant, as they are reviews. But does coverage in Mountain Express and DreadCentral amount to "significant coverage" making the subject worthy of note for an encyclopedia? Both sources have niche audiences. I don't think this satisfies
WP:NFP. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
(｡◕‿◕｡) 06:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I still don't see that one review makes a movie notable, i.e. worthy of note. Has this been established by precedent perhaps? The coverage needs to be substantial, and I think it's not found in this case. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you are incorrect to demand
WP:NF is met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect perhaps for now although I may add Delete with it later, I'll gone with this for now since there's still not enough. SwisterTwister talk 03:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

? Are you somehow suggesting that
WP:NF be rewritten? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the coverage identified above is sufficient for a close pass of
WP:NFILM Atlantic306 (talk) 15:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

~~Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_13th_Alley_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1138829878"~~